linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1504091652420.2598@hadrien>
Date:	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:53:48 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
cc:	Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL



On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> Sorry, my last email was bad.
>
> Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky.  Let me try
> explain better.
>
> Every patch should sort of make sense on its own.  In the original code
> it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and
> we had no choice.  In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly
> by choice and it's wrong.  In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we
> shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches.

But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL
choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API?

julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/